1

Standard Progressive Matrices

Sumukh Bharadwaj K N
2337560
Department of Psychology, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
Athulya Nair
MPS251: Psychodiagnostic Lab
2nd Febraury, 2024
 2

Standard Progressive Matrix

Introduction

The Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM) represent a significant milestone in the field of
intelligence testing, with their origins rooted in the collaboration between J. C. Raven and
geneticist Lionel Penrose during a groundbreaking study on the genetic and environmental
underpinnings of mental deficiency (Penrose, 1938). Raven's motivation for developing the RPM
stemmed from the challenges associated with administering traditional "intelligence" tests in
diverse settings, such as homes, schools, and workplaces, where factors like interfering noise and
the presence of numerous "helpers" complicated the testing process. Raven deemed Traditional
intelligence tests cumbersome, as their composite scoring obscured the interpretation of specific
abilities, and individual subscale scores proved unreliable.

Drawing inspiration from his mentor, Spearman, Raven sought to create tests that were not only
easy to administer but were also theoretically grounded and directly interpretable without the
need for complex calculations to determine latent factors. Spearman's pioneering work in
proposing a single underlying factor of general cognitive ability, known as "g," greatly
influenced Raven's approach to intelligence testing (Spearman, 1927a, 1927b). However, it is
noteworthy that Spearman delineated it into two distinct components: eductive ability (related to
problem-solving and reasoning) and reproductive ability (related to reproducing learned
information and skills). Raven, embracing Spearman's conceptualization, developed the RPM as
a measure of eductive ability and the Mill Hill Vocabulary (MHV) tests as a measure of
reproductive ability (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998d, 2000).

Contrary to popular misconceptions, these abilities are often inaccurately called "fluid" and
"crystallized" intelligence. Raven's ingenuity in crafting the RPM aimed at capturing the core of
cognitive abilities, emphasizing the importance of eductive processes in understanding human
intelligence. This introduction delves into the historical roots, theoretical foundations, and the
specific cognitive components targeted by the Raven Progressive Matrices, shedding light on its
evolution as a prominent tool in intelligence assessment.
 3

Furthermore, the RPM's versatility extends to its robust correlations with full-length intelligence
tests, real-world predictive capability in occupational settings, and consistent performance across
diverse cultural and socioeconomic groups, adding layers to its significance in understanding
human cognitive abilities.

Psychometric Properties of the Raven Progressive Matrices:

Standardization:
J. C. Raven and colleagues compiled the original normative data for the Raven Progressive
Matrices (RPM) in Britain immediately before and during World War II. They detailed the
combination of samples in Raven (2000c). While researchers sporadically checked the
appropriateness of these norms for the United States until the mid-1970s, subsequent
collaborative efforts, particularly with the present authors, produced a comprehensive pool of
international, ethnic, and time series norms. These norms, incorporated in the Manual (Raven,
2000b; Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998a, b, c, d; Raven et al., 2000), allow users to establish scores
across diverse contexts.

Internal Consistency:
The appropriate framework for assessing internal consistency in RPM and Mill Hill Vocabulary
(MHV) is the Item Response Theory, specifically a three-parameter Rasch model. Given the
adherence to the Rasch model and the ordered difficulty of RPM items, we anticipate high
split-half reliabilities. Indeed, the literature reports coefficients predominantly exceeding 0.90,
with a modal value of 0.91 (Court & Raven, 1995; Raven et al., 2000).

Test-Retest Reliability:
Over 120 articles, summarized in Court and Raven (1995), contribute to our understanding of
test-retest reliability. These studies, characterized by varied methodologies, populations
(including Native Americans, Africans, and psychiatric patients), and intervals (ranging from 1
week to 3 years), generally indicate adequate reliability (i.e., 0.85 and upward) for intervals up to
a year (Raven et al., 2000).
 4

Validity:
Establishing the validity of the RPM poses challenges due to the nature of the construct being
measured—eductive ability. The complex nature of human behavior, influenced by individual
motivations, organizational constraints, and societal expectations, demands a careful conceptual
analysis. According to McClelland (1973) and Messick (1989, 1995), validation necessitates
studying the nature of qualities assessed, the psychological aspects of criteria, personal qualities
contributing to success, and moderating factors. This approach emphasizes conceptual analysis
and ethnographic studies over traditional multivariate analyses.

Applications of Standard Progressive Matrices

Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven's Matrices) have proven valuable in assessing various
cognitive abilities and have applications across multiple domains.

Intelligence Assessment:
General intelligence: Ravens Matrices primarily assess fluid intelligence, the ability to reason,
solve problems, and adapt to new situations. They offer a valuable estimate of overall cognitive
ability across different age groups and cultural backgrounds (Raven, 2000; Wechsler, 2010;
Sattler, 2008).

Screening for Cognitive Impairments:

These matrices can be used as a screening tool for identifying individuals with potential
cognitive impairments like dementia or learning disabilities (American Psychiatric Association,
2013; Lezak, 2012; Strauss et al., 2006).

Educational Assessment:
Educators may use them to assess students' cognitive potential and identify those who might
benefit from additional support or enrichment programs (Flanagan et al., 2007; Sattler, 2008;
Reynolds & Willson, 2014).

Cognitive Neuroscience:
 5

Researchers utilize Ravens Matrices to study the neural basis of intelligence, reasoning, and
problem-solving (Duncan, 2010; Haier et al., 2005; Colom et al., 2009).

Developmental Psychology:
These matrices help understand how cognitive abilities develop over time in children and
adolescents (Piaget, 1972; Das, 1995; Kail, 2007).

Cross-Cultural Psychology:
The non-verbal nature of the test facilitates research across different cultures and languages
(Raven, 2000; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; Berry et al., 2020).
 6

Test Report

Name: S.B.

Age: 23

D.O.B: 29.05.2000

Gender: Male

Education: Post Graduate Student

Referred by: Self

Presenting Concerns: Nil

Test Administered: 16 PF

Purpose of Testing: Gaining insight into the participant’s abstract reasoning and fluid

intelligence.

Behavioural Observations: The person entered the room with confident body language. His voice

and language were calm and composed. He understood the instructions in one go. However,

while doing the questionnaire, he seemed to be easily distracted by noises from outside the room.

Test Result

The results of the ‘first-order factors’ of the test administered are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

The results of standard progressive matrices

Total Score Percentile Grade Interpretation

58 98 I High abstract thinking and

high non-verbal reasoning

Note: Score is after conversion and comparison with the standardised percentile value and subsequent grade.
 7

Table 2
Consistency Score

Set Expected Score (E) Observed Score(O) Consistency Score

A 12 12 0

B 12 12 0

C 12 12 0

D 12 12 0

E 12 10 -2

Total 60 58 -2

Test Interpretation

The test participant achieved a raw score of 58, placing them within the top 5% percentile. This

categorizes the participant as Grade I, indicating superior intelligence with a likelihood of

possessing above-average abstract reasoning and pattern recognition skills.

Impression and Recommendation

S.B. is likely to exhibit strong decision-making and adaptation skills, given the association of

high/superior intelligence scores with enhanced memory, reasoning, and cognitive flexibility

(Gottfredson, 2003). However, there is a potential for feelings of loneliness, difficulty in

 8

connecting with like-minded companions, or perceived arrogance, common challenges

experienced by individuals with high intelligence (Subotzky, 2017). Additionally, concerns about

perfectionism and heightened self-criticism may arise (Terman & Oden, 1959). Those with high

intelligence may benefit from specific therapeutic modalities such as cognitive-behavioral

therapy, suggesting its suitability for S.B. to address potential socio-emotional difficulties.

Furthermore, S.B. is advised to participate in the advanced progressive matrices, given their

above 95 percentile score in SPM.

Summary

In summary, S.B.'s percentile score above 95 and Grade I designation indicate superior fluid

intelligence and abstract reasoning as conceptualized by John C. Raven in the Standard

Progressive Matrices Test. This score not only showcases the individual's strengths but also

highlights potential areas of weakness, particularly in socio-emotional aspects, which can be

explored and addressed to enhance overall quality of life.